The VA Death Book

Perhaps panels aren't the right word. But many of the public option advocates point to the VA as a model for how it can work. If any of those aren't disgusted by this book they use for end of life counseling...you need to seek help.

These guys are paid wordsmiths. If health care doesn't work call it insurance reform. If public option doesn't work call it a co-op, but it's still a government plan. If you think Obama's associations don't matter, it's time to think again.

Ezekiel Emanuel, senior healthcare advisor to Obama and brother to Obama Chief of staff, has written about how it is necessary to deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/pos...tm?&page=1

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY Wrote:Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

Last updated: 12:44 pm
August 17, 2009
Posted: 1:03 am
July 24, 2009

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.



Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (JAMA, Feb. 27, 2008).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.

I've said before that the "death panels" thing is hyberbolic rhetoric.

That being said I don't see how any rational person could look at what the VA is doing with this book, the way it's written, the person that wrote it and his past statements, and not at least have some understanding of why people have concern about supposed "End of Life" counseling.

Note I said rational people, so naturally that precludes robert.

First off the "death panels" thing is NOT hyperbolic rhetoric.

It's real and has to do with recourses and rationing.

It's a disgrace that American Veterans are treated as disposable people. It Abhorrent. Pets get better treatment that Veterans. It a well established that the care at VA hospitals is not optimal. You would have a difficult time stating -- proving otherwise. The VA program is continually underfunded by Congress. So the end of life consulting is nothing more than preparing pathway to the grave.

So tell me in your opinion how a Veteran might come to a conclusion that "I am a severe financial burden on my family". " I'm not worth saving" --Is it his fault that the Gov't, that he went into the service to protect his country, has now turned on him. Tell me in your opinion, who is responsible for breaking the promises made to the Veterans when they joined up, that they would be taken care of. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the economy is in the craper, the dollar is on the slide, the country is in Chaos? Who? When the VA ask you the question "Do you have PTSD?" Most Veterans say NO, even if they have problems in that arena because its next stop is a Mental Dr, and your chances for other catastrophic care goes into the toilet, because you become "damaged" and not worth spending valuable recourses on. Who makes those live and death decisions?

You should not get me started on theis VA thing, I've had too many friends fall into that abyss.

I really don't think "death panels" is over the top. Maybe it was when referring to end-of-life counseling, which I actually think is a good idea, but it's not unreasonably hyperbolic when talking about the Council on Comparative Effectiveness. That agency has the real potential to morph into what can legitimately be called a "death panel." That is what has happened in other countries with sinle-payer and/or single-provider government systems. If it was NOT created for the purpose of legitimizing a "death panel" then I have difficulty imagining any foreseeable purpose.

Query--In something other than a single-payer or single-provider system, why do you need a Council on Comparative Effectiveness?

This is all far too 1984-ish for me.

(08-22-2009 05:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  First off the "death panels" thing is NOT hyperbolic rhetoric.

It's real and has to do with recourses and rationing.

It's a disgrace that American Veterans are treated as disposable people. It Abhorrent. Pets get better treatment that Veterans. It a well established that the care at VA hospitals is not optimal. You would have a difficult time stating -- proving otherwise. The VA program is continually underfunded by Congress. So the end of life consulting is nothing more than preparing pathway to the grave.

So tell me in your opinion how a Veteran might come to a conclusion that "I am a severe financial burden on my family". Is it his fault that the Gov't, that he went into the service to protect his country, has now turned on him. Tell me in your opinion, who is responsible for breaking the promises made to the Veterans when they joined up, that they would be taken care of. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the economy is in the craper, the dollar is on the slide, the country is in Chaos? Who? When the VA ask you the question "Do you have PTSD?" Most Veterans say NO, even if they have problems in that arena because its next stop is a Mental Dr, and your chances for other catastrophic care goes into the toilet, because you become "damaged" and not worth spending valuable recourses on. Who makes those live and death decisions?

You should not get me started on theis VA thing, I've had too many friends fall into that abyss.

Not exactly sure why you're asking my opinion as if I would disagree with you on how vets are treated. Bare in mind I'm the one that started the thread and I'm a conservative adamentally opposed to Obamacare. Chill out.

Regarding death panels yes it is hyperbole. It gives off the impression that your situation goes before a panel and they decide if you deserve to live. HR 3200 has many flaws but it doesn't have anything like that in what I've read. Yes, one could carry the end of life counseling to that extreme, but it's not in the bill. It's also counter productive to say otherwise. I for one agree totally that it can morph to that. But that end state is not the intent of the current bill. However, I've said many times politicians are pros at simply looking at A and never bothering to consider B C and D.

Say what you want about Obama and democrats but I don't for one second believe they want to kill old people. I just think they view it end of life counseling as something helpful in making decisions while not realizing the Pandora's box it opens up. I do believe many simply want more control of people's lives because they quite simply think they know better than we do. It's hubris beyond measure to be sure, but I don't believe it flows from a calculated desire to lower costs by killing people.

There are more than enough problems with Obamacare and HR 3200 on their own without people introducing hyperbole and hysterics into the debate.

(08-22-2009 04:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I've said before that the "death panels" thing is hyberbolic rhetoric.

That being said I don't see how any rational person could look at what the VA is doing with this book, the way it's written, the person that wrote it and his past statements, and not at least have some understanding of why people have concern about supposed "End of Life" counseling.

Note I said rational people, so naturally that precludes robert.

The people who have a problem with talking about end of life choices are you rightwing Christian whackjobs. Your comprehension of what is being proposed is SOOOOO far off it isn't even funny. What is proposed is VOLUNTARY and all it says is that the DOCTOR can be reimbursed for his time with the patient/family while discussing the issue.

(08-22-2009 05:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really don't think "death panels" is over the top. Maybe it was when referring to end-of-life counseling, which I actually think is a good idea, but it's not unreasonably hyperbolic when talking about the Council on Comparative Effectiveness. That agency has the real potential to morph into what can legitimately be called a "death panel." That is what has happened in other countries with sinle-payer and/or single-provider government systems.

Query--In something other than a single-payer or single-provider system, why do you need a Council on Comparative Effectiveness?

This is all far too 1984-ish for me.

Well, the good thing for you is you can pay help United Healthcare's CEO a billion dollars to determine your fate with THEIR "death panels".

(08-22-2009 05:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  First off the "death panels" thing is NOT hyperbolic rhetoric.

It's real and has to do with recourses and rationing.

It's a disgrace that American Veterans are treated as disposable people. It Abhorrent. Pets get better treatment that Veterans. It a well established that the care at VA hospitals is not optimal. You would have a difficult time stating -- proving otherwise. The VA program is continually underfunded by Congress. So the end of life consulting is nothing more than preparing pathway to the grave.

So tell me in your opinion how a Veteran might come to a conclusion that "I am a severe financial burden on my family". " I'm not worth saving" --Is it his fault that the Gov't, that he went into the service to protect his country, has now turned on him. Tell me in your opinion, who is responsible for breaking the promises made to the Veterans when they joined up, that they would be taken care of. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the economy is in the craper, the dollar is on the slide, the country is in Chaos? Who? When the VA ask you the question "Do you have PTSD?" Most Veterans say NO, even if they have problems in that arena because its next stop is a Mental Dr, and your chances for other catastrophic care goes into the toilet, because you become "damaged" and not worth spending valuable recourses on. Who makes those live and death decisions?

You should not get me started on theis VA thing, I've had too many friends fall into that abyss.

Jeezus! Jeezus! I love Jeezus!

(08-22-2009 05:46 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-22-2009 04:33 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I've said before that the "death panels" thing is hyberbolic rhetoric.

That being said I don't see how any rational person could look at what the VA is doing with this book, the way it's written, the person that wrote it and his past statements, and not at least have some understanding of why people have concern about supposed "End of Life" counseling.

Note I said rational people, so naturally that precludes robert.

The people who have a problem with talking about end of life choices are you rightwing Christian whackjobs. Your comprehension of what is being proposed is SOOOOO far off it isn't even funny. What is proposed is VOLUNTARY and all it says is that the DOCTOR can be reimbursed for his time with the patient/family while discussing the issue.

STFU fool. You don't have intelligence or cognitive reasoning abilities to participate in this discussion. You're a moron. Deal with it and shut up.

BTW I have no issue with end of life couseling. I'll give you some for free. You are a drain on society and your family. You add nothing of value. End it now.

(08-22-2009 05:56 PM)Roberta Wrote:  

(08-22-2009 05:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  First off the "death panels" thing is NOT hyperbolic rhetoric.

It's real and has to do with recourses and rationing.

It's a disgrace that American Veterans are treated as disposable people. It Abhorrent. Pets get better treatment that Veterans. It a well established that the care at VA hospitals is not optimal. You would have a difficult time stating -- proving otherwise. The VA program is continually underfunded by Congress. So the end of life consulting is nothing more than preparing pathway to the grave.

So tell me in your opinion how a Veteran might come to a conclusion that "I am a severe financial burden on my family". " I'm not worth saving" --Is it his fault that the Gov't, that he went into the service to protect his country, has now turned on him. Tell me in your opinion, who is responsible for breaking the promises made to the Veterans when they joined up, that they would be taken care of. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the economy is in the craper, the dollar is on the slide, the country is in Chaos? Who? When the VA ask you the question "Do you have PTSD?" Most Veterans say NO, even if they have problems in that arena because its next stop is a Mental Dr, and your chances for other catastrophic care goes into the toilet, because you become "damaged" and not worth spending valuable recourses on. Who makes those live and death decisions?

You should not get me started on theis VA thing, I've had too many friends fall into that abyss.

Jeezus! Jeezus! I love Jeezus!

Roberta praying, now that's a horse's a$$ of a different color.

(08-22-2009 05:41 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Say what you want about Obama and democrats but I don't for one second believe they want to kill old people. I just think they view it end of life counseling as something helpful in making decisions while not realizing the Pandora's box it opens up. I do believe many simply want more control of people's lives because they quite simply think they know better than we do. It's hubris beyond measure to be sure, but I don't believe it flows from a calculated desire to lower costs by killing people.

I would say more that they're indifferent to killing old people. If that's what it takes to get their way, then so be it.

Specter Calls for Hearings on End-of-Life Care Guide for Veterans

The guide, called 'Your Life, Your Choices,' was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

Sen. Arlen Specter on Sunday called for hearings to scrutinize a guide for veterans' end-of-life care which one former Bush official says sends a "hurry-up-and-die" message to injured troops.

The guide, called "Your Life, Your Choices," was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans Affairs.

Jim Towey, former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, told "FOX News Sunday" that the document makes injured veterans feel like a burden, encourages the severely injured to die and should be tossed out.

Asked about the document, Specter, a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, said it raises "a lot of questions" and that he would call for hearings immediately.

"I think consideration ought to be given right now to suspending it pending hearings," Specter, D-Pa., told "FOX News Sunday."

Towey first wrote about the revival of the manual last week in The Wall Street Journal.

"This is a slippery slope," he said Sunday. "When you look at the book it makes people feel like they're a burden and they should do the decent thing and die. ... When a veteran comes back from Iraq, they shouldn't be given a book like this."

Towey called the guide "fundamentally flawed" and said it should be pulled from the Web site.

But Tammy Duckworth, an injured veteran who is the assistant secretary for the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the manual is still under revision -- as stated in a disclaimer on the official Web site -- and has not officially been "reinstated."

She said it was one of many options for injured veterans, calling it "simply a tool."

"This ultimately is about the ... health care for veterans," Duckworth said.

Though Duckworth said the document has not been fully vetted, an official directive from July tells VA health practitioners to refer veterans to the document. Duckworth questioned whether that directive had been authorized at the highest levels.

Towey said the questions posed by the guide embed the suggestion that veterans who are suffering may want to choose death.

One section titled, "What Makes Your Life Worth Living?," offers a checklist of scenarios -- the person filling out the form is asked to rate whether life would be worth living under each of them.

"I am a severe financial burden on my family," says one of them. "My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family," says another.

NY Post and WSJ: Murdoch. Can conservatives not find a source that is not funding by Murdoch? Of course these people need corporate sources because they don't have any grassroots or any investigative types in their low intellectual ideology base.

The Death Panel Lady got destroyed by Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21...64970.html

(08-23-2009 10:34 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  NY Post and WSJ: Murdoch. Can conservatives not find a source that is not funding by Murdoch? Of course these people need corporate sources because they don't have any grassroots or any investigative types in their low intellectual ideology base.

The Death Panel Lady got destroyed by Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21...64970.html

OK, what parts of the story are you claiming are untrue? Do you have specific knowledge that any parts of the story are true?

It takes more than ad hominem attacks on the source to attack the credibility of information.

(08-23-2009 10:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:34 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  NY Post and WSJ: Murdoch. Can conservatives not find a source that is not funding by Murdoch? Of course these people need corporate sources because they don't have any grassroots or any investigative types in their low intellectual ideology base.

The Death Panel Lady got destroyed by Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21...64970.html

OK, what parts of the story are you claiming are untrue? Do you have specific knowledge that any parts of the story are true?

It takes more than ad hominem attacks on the source to attack the credibility of information.

Of course conservatives are stupid. The Death Panel lady could not even defend her own argument on The Daily Show. Conservatives listen to "minds" like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck and they wonder why their ideology is dying.

(08-23-2009 10:45 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:34 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  NY Post and WSJ: Murdoch. Can conservatives not find a source that is not funding by Murdoch? Of course these people need corporate sources because they don't have any grassroots or any investigative types in their low intellectual ideology base.

The Death Panel Lady got destroyed by Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21...64970.html

OK, what parts of the story are you claiming are untrue? Do you have specific knowledge that any parts of the story are true?

It takes more than ad hominem attacks on the source to attack the credibility of information.

Of course conservatives are stupid. The Death Panel lady could not even defend her own argument on The Daily Show. Conservatives listen to "minds" like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck and they wonder why their ideology is dying.

So, what part of the story are untrue? Is any of it untrue? If none of it is untrue, then what difference does it make what the source is?

(08-23-2009 10:45 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:34 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  NY Post and WSJ: Murdoch. Can conservatives not find a source that is not funding by Murdoch? Of course these people need corporate sources because they don't have any grassroots or any investigative types in their low intellectual ideology base.

The Death Panel Lady got destroyed by Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21...64970.html

OK, what parts of the story are you claiming are untrue? Do you have specific knowledge that any parts of the story are true?

It takes more than ad hominem attacks on the source to attack the credibility of information.

Of course conservatives are stupid. The Death Panel lady could not even defend her own argument on The Daily Show. Conservatives listen to "minds" like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck and they wonder why their ideology is dying.

The only thing dieing is the Democratic -- Obama Agenda. And that fact is supportable, unlike your intellectually deficient drivel.

(08-23-2009 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:45 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2009 10:34 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  NY Post and WSJ: Murdoch. Can conservatives not find a source that is not funding by Murdoch? Of course these people need corporate sources because they don't have any grassroots or any investigative types in their low intellectual ideology base.

The Death Panel Lady got destroyed by Jon Stewart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21...64970.html

OK, what parts of the story are you claiming are untrue? Do you have specific knowledge that any parts of the story are true?

It takes more than ad hominem attacks on the source to attack the credibility of information.

Of course conservatives are stupid. The Death Panel lady could not even defend her own argument on The Daily Show. Conservatives listen to "minds" like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck and they wonder why their ideology is dying.

So, what part of the story are untrue? Is any of it untrue? If none of it is untrue, then what difference does it make what the source is?

Its untrue because she couldn't defend her argument Rush fan.